Thursday, October 15, 2026

MAHARAJ SHAH’S FILM ‘AZADI’: A POWERFUL AND HONEST RECKONING WITH KASHMIR’S TRAGEDY


                                                                                  

MAHARAJ SHAH’S FILM ‘AZADI’: A POWERFUL AND HONEST RECKONING WITH KASHMIR’S TRAGEDY


Maharaj Shah’s Azadi, a 20-minute film, is possibly among the first of its kind to employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to portray the 1990 tragedy that brought death and destruction to the Kashmir valley, drove  away the Kashmiri Pandits from their ancestral homeland and created a rupture in the social fabric of society. The filmmaker deserves appreciation for his imaginative and effective use of a technology that is bound to transform the language, visual vocabulary and techniques of filmmaking in the years to come. More importantly, he has employed this emerging technology to revisit a painful chapter of Kashmir’s history, giving visual expression to memories that remain deeply etched in the collective consciousness of a community uprooted from its origins.

The film follows the tragedy in a compelling chronological progression, beginning with the targeted killings and mounting atmosphere of terror that progressively destroyed the community’s sense of security. It moves towards the fateful night of 19 January 1990, when fear, uncertainty and the growing threat to life turned an already desperate situation into a defining moment in the history of the Kashmiri Pandits. The narrative then recalls the murder of Engineer Ganjoo, whose hiding place was betrayed to his killers by a neighbour. This episode captures the terrifying reality of a time when even the familiarity of one’s surroundings and the trust placed in neighbours could no longer guarantee safety.

 From individual killings, the film moves to the mass exodus that emptied homes, abandoned ancestral properties and uprooted generations from their familiar landscape. The film then turns to Jagmohan’s arrival and his determination to restore order amid the turmoil. It also addresses the political interference that hampered his efforts and eventually led to his departure from the state. By placing these developments within the larger chronology, the filmmaker attempts to present the unfolding tragedy as a sequence of events rather than as a collection of disconnected incidents. The narrative also draws attention to the children who disappeared into the vortex of terrorism, leaving mothers to endure a lifelong torment.

The narrative follows the displaced families into the misery of camp life, where the tragedy assumed a different but equally relentless form. The oppressive heat, snakes, inadequate living conditions and daily indignities convey the gulf between the lives the exiles had left behind and the precarious existence into which they had been forced.

In this bleak account, the emotional refuge offered by Geeta Bhawan acquires special significance. It represents more than shelter. It evokes the importance of institutions and individuals who helped a traumatised community preserve some measure of dignity, solidarity and hope. The film's attention to this dimension prevents the story from becoming merely an inventory of suffering. It also acknowledges the compassion and support that helped people endure circumstances that would otherwise have seemed unbearable.

 Equally disturbing is the film’s exposure of the greed of property brokers  from Kashmir who sought to dispossess the exiles of their abandoned homes. For many Kashmiri Pandits, the loss of their homeland did not end with physical departure. Their houses and other properties became vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation and appropriation. To exploit the helplessness of displaced owners is therefore to deepen an existing wound. The film also traces the emergence of a new idea and organisation through which the community sought to sustain its struggle for survival and recognition. The determination to preserve memory, articulate grievances and seek recognition becomes an essential part of the continuing struggle. In this sense, Azadi looks beyond the immediate events of 1990 to the longer aftermath of a tragedy whose consequences continue to shape the lives of those who were uprooted.

 One of the film’s principal strengths lies in its directness. The dialogues are crisp, clear and uncompromising. Nothing is concealed, camouflaged or rendered obscure through unnecessary abstraction. The filmmaker does not allow stylistic devices to overwhelm the subject. Each episode is presented with an immediacy that enables the viewer to follow the progression of events and comprehend their cumulative human cost. The chronological structure lends coherence to the narrative, while the use of AI offers a means of reconstructing scenes associated with a traumatic past. Technology here serves the subject rather than becoming an end in itself.

The film’s brevity makes this achievement particularly noteworthy. Compressing such a complex and painful history into 20 minutes is no easy task. The challenge is not simply to include a series of events but to establish their relationship and convey the magnitude of what happened to ordinary people. Azadi attempts to meet that challenge by moving from terror to exodus, from displacement to the hardships of camp life, and from the immediate struggle for survival to the continuing effort to preserve identity and secure recognition. The result is a compact narrative with a clear sense of direction.

 A film dealing with collective trauma must also confront the responsibility of remembering. The passage of time can distance later generations from the circumstances that shaped the lives of their parents and grandparents. Memories fade, eyewitnesses grow fewer, and the experiences of displaced families risk being reduced to statistics or simplified political narratives. Films such as Azadi can help bridge this distance by making history accessible through visual storytelling. For younger viewers, in particular, the film may serve as an introduction to the human consequences of a tragedy that cannot be understood merely through dates, political developments or official descriptions.

Of all the films I have seen on this subject, Azadi strikes me as one of the truest and most honest. This is a personal assessment, arising from the film’s treatment of events, its chronological progression and its refusal to dilute the harshness of the experiences it depicts. Its achievement lies not in claiming to exhaust every aspect of Kashmir’s tragedy within a short duration, but in bringing several essential episodes into a coherent and compelling narrative. Maharaj Shah deserves special appreciation for undertaking this courageous work. By combining emerging technology with a painful historical subject, he has created a film that seeks neither refuge in evasion nor comfort in cosmetic embellishment. Azadi reminds us that the tragedy of the Kashmiri Pandits cannot be confined to a single night, a single year or a single episode of displacement. Its consequences extend across generations, inhabiting memories, disturbing family histories and sustaining an unresolved longing for home. The film gives this continuing pain a visual voice. Its greatest merit is that it asks the viewer not to look away.

(Avtar Mota )



Creative Commons License

ABHINAVAGUPTA AND THE NON-DUAL VISION OF REALITY: THE PERCEIVER, PERCEPTION AND THE UNIVERSE

                                                                           
                                  ( Abhinavgupta . Photo credit: Swami Lakshman Joo Photo Album)

ABHINAVAGUPTA AND THE NON-DUAL VISION OF REALITY: THE PERCEIVER, PERCEPTION AND THE UNIVERSE

 

THE CHALLENGE TO THE SEPARATION BETWEEN SELF AND WORLD

 

“Nothing perceived is independent of perception, and perception differs not from the perceiver; therefore, the universe is nothing but the perceiver.”- Acharya Abhinavagupta

 

This profound philosophical proposition challenges one of the most deeply ingrained assumptions of human experience: that the universe exists as an entirely independent reality outside us, while consciousness merely observes it from within the confines of the individual mind. It questions the apparent separation between the perceiver, the act of perception and the perceived object, inviting us to reconsider whether these three are ultimately distinct realities or different expressions of a fundamental unity. Its significance becomes particularly evident when examined through the philosophical traditions of the Upanishads and, more specifically, the non-dual Kashmir Shaivism system developed to its highest philosophical sophistication by Abhinavagupta, the celebrated Kashmiri philosopher, theologian, aesthetician and spiritual master of approximately the tenth and eleventh centuries.

The proposition must, however, be approached with philosophical care. It does not necessarily assert that the individual human mind creates mountains, rivers, stars or the physical universe. Nor does it imply that an object ceases to exist whenever a person stops looking at it. Its deeper argument concerns the relationship between consciousness and the manifestation of reality. It asks whether a universe entirely divorced from every possibility of awareness can be meaningfully conceived and whether the distinction between the observer and the observed, so persuasive in ordinary experience, represents the ultimate structure of existence.

Ordinarily, we regard ourselves as individual subjects confronting a world of independent objects. A mountain stands before us, a river flows beyond us, and the sun illuminates a landscape that appears to exist without any dependence upon our presence. We assume that consciousness is a private possession of the individual, enclosed within the body and employed by the mind to interpret an external reality. The statement reverses this habitual perspective. Instead of treating consciousness as a minor phenomenon within the universe, it asks whether the universe as experienced is inseparable from consciousness itself.

This reversal brings the enquiry into the central territory of Indian non-dual philosophy. The question is no longer merely what we perceive, but what perception reveals about the nature of the perceiver and the reality that becomes manifest through the act of knowing.

 THE UPANISHADIC ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE SELF

The philosophical foundations of this enquiry are deeply embedded in the Upanishads, which repeatedly direct attention from the objects of knowledge towards the ultimate principle by which knowledge becomes possible. Their central concern is not simply the accumulation of information about the universe, but the discovery of the relationship between the innermost Self, Atman, and the ultimate reality, Brahman.

The Chandogya Upanishad expresses this vision through the celebrated declaration, Tat Tvam Asi, “That thou art” (6.8.7). Addressed by Uddalaka Aruni to his son Shvetaketu, the teaching invites the seeker to recognise that the deepest reality of the individual is not ultimately separate from the ground of existence. The declaration does not mean that the empirical personality, with its memories, ambitions, limitations and individual history, is identical with the entire cosmos. Rather, it directs attention beyond the changing attributes of the person towards the fundamental reality underlying both the individual and the universe.

The significance of this teaching becomes clearer when related to the distinction between the individual perceiver and the consciousness through which perception becomes possible. We ordinarily identify ourselves with the body, the senses and the mind. Yet these are themselves objects of experience. The body undergoes change; thoughts arise and disappear; emotions fluctuate; memories fade or return. Nevertheless, we possess an awareness of these changes. The Upanishadic enquiry asks whether the deepest identity of the individual can be reduced to the changing contents of experience or whether the Self points towards a more fundamental and enduring reality.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad pursues this enquiry through the teachings of Yajnavalkya. In its examination of the Self as the inner witness, it draws attention to that by which seeing, hearing, thinking and knowing become possible. The eye sees objects, but the eye itself does not explain the awareness through which seeing is known. The mind produces thoughts, but thoughts alone do not exhaust the meaning of consciousness. The enquiry therefore turns from the instruments of perception towards the principle that makes perception intelligible.

The Kena Upanishad articulates this insight with extraordinary economy. It asks what directs the mind towards its objects, what enables speech, and what makes hearing and sight possible. Its opening teaching identifies Brahman as that which is the hearing of hearing, the thinking of thought and the speech of speech (1.2). The ultimate principle is not simply another object presented to the senses. It is the ground upon which the very distinction between the knowing subject and the known object depends.

This teaching establishes a fundamental affinity with the proposition under discussion. If the perceiver is examined carefully, the enquiry leads beyond the individual personality towards the consciousness through which the personality and its world become manifest. The universe is no longer considered merely as a collection of objects observed by an isolated subject. It becomes a question concerning the relationship between awareness and existence itself.

THE DREAM ANALOGY AND THE LIMITS OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION

The Upanishadic traditions frequently employ the experience of dreaming to examine the nature of consciousness. During a dream, we encounter landscapes, people, conversations, dangers and pleasures. The dream world appears to possess its own spatial arrangement and internal continuity. Its inhabitants seem distinct from us, and its objects appear to exist independently of our immediate intentions. Yet, upon awakening, we recognise that the entire field of dream experience belonged to a different mode of consciousness.

The philosophical importance of this analogy does not lie in proving that the waking universe is unreal in precisely the same manner as a dream. Such a conclusion would require an argument that the analogy alone cannot supply. Its purpose is more subtle: it demonstrates that the apparent externality of an object does not, by itself, establish its absolute independence from consciousness.

The Mandukya Upanishad develops an especially profound analysis of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, culminating in its account of Turiya, the fourth, non-dual reality. Turiya is not merely another ordinary state of consciousness added to the other three. It points towards the ground that cannot be adequately confined to the distinctions through which ordinary experience is organised. The familiar separation between the observer and the observed is therefore subjected to a more radical enquiry.

The dream analogy also helps us distinguish between the individual mind and universal consciousness. A dream may be experienced by an individual, but this does not establish that the waking universe is simply the private creation of an individual's imagination. Rather, the analogy encourages us to question whether the structure of experience can be understood without examining the consciousness in which distinctions become manifest.

This distinction is crucial to understanding Abhinavagupta. His philosophy does not merely replace an external universe with an individual's internal mental world. It advances a far more comprehensive vision in which consciousness is universal, self-aware and endowed with the freedom to manifest itself as the diversity of existence.

ABHINAVAGUPTA: THE PHILOSOPHER OF UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Abhinavagupta occupies a singular position in the intellectual and spiritual history of Kashmir. A master of Kashmir Shaivism, he brought together diverse strands of Shaiva revelation, philosophical reasoning, contemplative practice, aesthetics and literary criticism into an extraordinarily integrated vision. His works, particularly the Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini, the Ishvarapratyabhijna-vivrti-vimarshini and the Tantraloka, illuminate the profound implications of non-duality for understanding consciousness and the universe.

The philosophical tradition most closely associated with this enquiry is Pratyabhijna, or the philosophy of Recognition. Its central insight is that liberation involves recognising one's true identity as the universal consciousness that is the ultimate reality of all existence. This is not the recognition of a new object by an otherwise unchanged observer. It is a transformation in understanding through which the apparent limitations of individual identity are seen in relation to the universal nature of consciousness.

In Abhinavagupta's philosophical vision, ultimate reality is Shiva, understood not merely as a divine person standing apart from the universe, but as universal consciousness, possessing intrinsic self-awareness and freedom. Consciousness is not inert or passive. Its nature includes the capacity to know itself and to manifest the plurality of the world.

This freedom is expressed through Svatantrya, the absolute freedom of consciousness. Through its power, consciousness manifests the universe without ceasing to be the fundamental reality underlying it. The universe is therefore neither an entirely independent reality standing outside consciousness nor merely an illusion without significance. It is the manifestation of consciousness through its own inherent power, Shakti.

This understanding offers a particularly illuminating interpretation of the statement that the universe is nothing but the perceiver. The word perceiver must not be understood as referring to the limited human personality. The ultimate perceiver is universal consciousness itself. The individual who sees a mountain and the mountain that is seen are not two ultimately independent realities. Both are understood within the all-embracing reality of consciousness.

PRAKASHA AND VIMARSHA: CONSCIOUSNESS THAT KNOWS ITSELF

Two important concepts in the philosophical tradition of Kashmir Shaivism help clarify this vision: Prakasha and Vimarsha. Prakasha signifies luminosity, the self-revealing nature of consciousness. Just as light makes objects visible, consciousness makes experience manifest. Yet the analogy must not be taken literally. Consciousness is not a physical light illuminating objects in space. It is the principle through which the existence of an experience becomes known. Vimarsha refers to the reflexive, self-aware dimension of consciousness, its capacity not merely to illuminate but also to know itself. Consciousness is not a blank screen upon which experiences appear without any intrinsic awareness. It possesses the capacity for self-recognition and expressive freedom.

The relationship between these two concepts is essential to Abhinavagupta's understanding of reality. Consciousness does not depend upon something entirely outside itself to become aware. Its luminosity and self-awareness belong to its own nature. The universe manifests through this consciousness, and the apparent distinction between the knower and the known is possible within its power of expression.

Consider the experience of seeing a tree. At the ordinary level, we distinguish the tree, the act of seeing and the person who sees. These distinctions are indispensable for everyday life. Yet the entire experience is disclosed within consciousness. The tree becomes manifest as an object of awareness; the act of seeing becomes known; and the identity of the seer is itself experienced through awareness.

For Abhinavagupta, the ultimate reality is not adequately described as an inert substance upon which consciousness is superimposed. Consciousness is inherently dynamic, self-aware and expressive. Its power of manifestation accounts for the world's diversity without requiring the existence of a second, absolutely independent principle outside it.

The statement that perception differs not from the perceiver can therefore be understood as an invitation to examine the apparent division between the act of knowing and the consciousness that knows. It is not simply that an individual possesses perceptions. Rather, perception itself belongs to the activity of consciousness, whose freedom permits the manifestation of both subject and object.

SHIVA AND SHAKTI: THE UNIVERSE AS THE MANIFESTATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

The relationship between Shiva and Shakti is central to Kashmir Shaivism. Shiva signifies the ultimate consciousness, while Shakti is its inherent power of manifestation. They are not two independent realities, one existing without the other. Shakti is the expressive power of Shiva, and Shiva is never separate from Shakti. This relationship distinguishes the Kashmir Shaiva vision from interpretations of non-duality that tend to emphasise the unreality or provisional character of the manifested world. In Abhinavagupta's understanding, the universe is a real manifestation of consciousness. Its multiplicity is not evidence of a second ultimate reality standing outside Shiva. It is the expression of the freedom through which consciousness manifests itself in countless forms.

A river, a mountain, a flower, the movement of the stars and the emergence of human thought belong to the manifold expression of this universal reality. Their differences are not simply erased. Kashmir Shaivism seeks to understand how diversity can arise without compromising non-duality.

The universe is thus not external to consciousness in an absolute sense. Yet neither is it merely a private thought in the mind of an individual observer. The individual mind is itself one of the manifestations of the universal consciousness that sustains the entire field of experience.

This distinction guards against a common misunderstanding of the proposition. If the universe is described as nothing but the perceiver, the claim should not be interpreted as saying that a person can make physical objects appear or disappear by thinking about them. Such an interpretation confuses the limited agency of the individual ego with the universal freedom attributed to Shiva. The deeper claim is metaphysical: the ultimate reality of both the perceiver and the perceived is one consciousness. Their distinction is meaningful at the level of manifestation, but neither possesses an existence wholly independent of the ultimate ground.

THE UPANISHADS AND ABHINAVAGUPTA: CONVERGENCE AND DISTINCTION

The relationship between the Upanishads and Abhinavagupta deserves careful attention. Both traditions investigate the nature of consciousness and challenge the assumption that the individual self is ultimately separate from the ground of existence. Both direct the seeker beyond the changing objects of experience towards a more fundamental understanding of reality. The Chandogya Upanishad's Tat Tvam Asi and the non-dual recognition central to Pratyabhijna may therefore be brought into meaningful philosophical dialogue. Both invite a movement beyond ordinary identification with the limited personality. Both suggest that the truth of the individual cannot be understood fully in isolation from ultimate reality. Nevertheless, the traditions should not be treated as interchangeable. Advaita Vedanta, particularly in the interpretation associated with Shankara, understands Brahman as the non-dual absolute and explains the appearance of plurality through the framework of Maya and ignorance. The world of ordinary experience is not ultimately independent of Brahman, although its apparent multiplicity does not possess the same status as the absolute. Kashmir Shaivism, particularly as articulated by Abhinavagupta, places a distinctive emphasis on the self-manifesting freedom of consciousness. The universe is understood as a genuine expression of Shiva's power, rather than simply as an appearance whose multiplicity must be sublated in the knowledge of the absolute. The world is not outside the divine consciousness; it is the manifestation of that consciousness. This difference is not merely terminological. It affects the philosophical interpretation of perception, the status of the world and the nature of spiritual liberation. In the Kashmir Shaiva vision, recognising the unity of consciousness does not require rejecting the world's diversity as meaningless. Instead, one comes to understand diversity as the expressive richness of a single reality. The Upanishadic enquiry provides a foundational context for these questions. At the same time, Abhinavagupta develops a distinctive and highly sophisticated account of how consciousness can be both the ground of existence and the source of its manifold expression.

THE EGO IS NOT THE ULTIMATE PERCEIVER

One of the most important implications of the statement is the distinction between the individual ego and the deeper consciousness through which experience becomes possible. When we say, “I perceive the universe”, we ordinarily identify the perceiver with our individual personality. We assume that the self is a bounded entity, located within the body and separated from everything outside it. Yet the ego itself is known through experience. Its thoughts, desires, fears, memories and sense of personal identity arise and change. They cannot therefore be equated without qualification with the ultimate perceiver described by non-dual philosophy. The Upanishadic enquiry asks the seeker to look beyond these changing features towards the Self that makes their experience possible. Kashmir Shaivism extends this insight by identifying the deepest nature of consciousness with universal Shiva. The implication is radical. The individual does not become the universal consciousness by enlarging the ego or claiming ownership of the cosmos. Rather, liberation involves recognising that the ego's apparent independence is not ultimate. The consciousness through which the individual knows the world is understood as participating in, and ultimately grounded in, the universal reality that manifests both the knower and the known.

The statement of Abhinavagupta must therefore not be reduced to the assertion that the universe is whatever an individual happens to think it is. Such a position would make reality dependent upon personal opinion and would confuse subjective imagination with universal consciousness. Abhinavagupta's philosophy is far more demanding. It asks the individual to recognise the limitations of ordinary identity and to understand perception within a non-dual metaphysics.

RECOGNITION AS A TRANSFORMATION OF KNOWLEDGE

The term Pratyabhijna means recognition. Its philosophical significance lies in the difference between acquiring new information and recognising a truth that has been obscured by a limited understanding of oneself. Ordinary knowledge often proceeds by treating the knower and the known as separate. We collect facts about a mountain, analyse the properties of a flower or study the movements of celestial bodies. Such knowledge is indispensable and can be exacting in its methods. Yet it does not necessarily answer the more fundamental question of what makes knowledge possible or how the knower relates to the reality known.

Recognition, in the Kashmir Shaiva sense, addresses this deeper question. It involves understanding that the consciousness through which one experiences the world is not ultimately separate from the universal consciousness that manifests it. The transformation is not a denial of empirical distinctions but a change in one's understanding of their ultimate status. The universe continues to appear in its diversity. Mountains remain mountains, rivers remain rivers, and individuals retain their particular identities in everyday life. What changes is the assumption that these distinctions represent absolutely independent realities. The multiplicity of existence is recognised as occurring within a unity that is not external to any of its manifestations.

This is why non-dual recognition cannot be reduced to an intellectual slogan. To repeat that everything is one is not the same as understanding the implications of non-duality. The teaching demands an examination of the assumptions through which we construct the apparent opposition between self and world.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL LIMITS OF THE PROPOSITION

A scholarly interpretation must distinguish the metaphysical insight expressed by the statement from conclusions that do not necessarily follow from its wording alone. The proposition that nothing perceived is independent of perception may be understood epistemologically: everything we know as an object of experience is known through some form of awareness. But this does not, by itself, prove that the physical universe cannot exist independently of any individual observer. The dependence of knowledge upon consciousness and the dependence of existence upon consciousness are related questions, but they are not identical. The further assertion that perception does not differ from the perceiver is likewise open to interpretation. In ordinary language, the act of seeing and the person who sees can certainly be distinguished. The non-dual argument operates at a deeper level, questioning whether the distinction between consciousness and its activity can be absolute. Kashmir Shaivism answers this question by treating awareness and its power of manifestation as inseparable dimensions of universal consciousness.

Consequently, the final conclusion that the universe is nothing but the perceiver is best understood within the metaphysical framework of non-dual philosophy. It is not a result established by the simple observation that human beings experience the world through their senses. It depends upon the further philosophical claim that consciousness is the fundamental reality of which both the individual perceiver and the perceived universe are manifestations. This qualification strengthens rather than diminishes the argument. It prevents a profound philosophical insight from being mistaken for a simplistic claim that the world exists only when a human being looks at it. It also clarifies why Abhinavagupta's thought remains significant: his philosophy offers a developed account of universal consciousness, its freedom and its capacity to manifest the diversity of existence.

CONCLUSION: THE UNIVERSE RECOGNISED AS CONSCIOUSNESS

The statement, “Nothing perceived is independent of perception, and perception differs not from the perceiver; therefore, the universe is nothing but the perceiver,” brings us to the threshold of one of the most profound questions in Indian philosophy. Is consciousness merely an accidental phenomenon appearing within an otherwise independent universe, or is consciousness the fundamental reality through which the universe itself becomes manifest?

The Upanishads direct the seeker towards the relationship between Atman and Brahman, questioning the apparent independence of the individual self from the ground of existence. Their teachings encourage a movement beyond the changing objects of experience towards the principle that makes knowing possible. Abhinavagupta, drawing upon and developing the rich philosophical resources of Kashmir Shaivism, presents a vision in which universal consciousness is self-aware, freely expressive and capable of manifesting itself as the entire universe.

Through the concepts of Prakasha, Vimarsha, Svatantrya and the inseparability of Shiva and Shakti, he explains how consciousness can be both the foundation of reality and the dynamic source of its diversity. The perceiver is not the limited ego, and the universe is not merely a private construction of the individual mind. Both are understood as expressions of one universal consciousness.

The deepest implication of this vision is therefore not that the individual possesses the universe, but that the separation between the individual and the universe is not ultimate. What appears as a world of independent objects confronting an isolated subject is re-examined in the light of a more fundamental unity. The act of knowing becomes a means of questioning the apparent boundaries of the knower. At the same time, spiritual recognition reveals a reality in which consciousness and manifestation cannot be understood as wholly separate.

 In this sense, the statement resonates with the Upanishadic declaration Tat Tvam Asi and with the Pratyabhijna insight that liberation lies in recognising one's true nature. Its final message is not the triumph of the individual mind over the world, but the transcendence of the assumption that the individual mind and the world are ultimately unrelated.

The universe is not merely something that consciousness observes from outside; in the non-dual vision articulated by Abhinavagupta, it is the manifestation of the very consciousness whose deepest nature the seeker is called upon to recognise.

(Avtar Mota)

Footnote

*ABHINAVAGUPTA: THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER OF KASHMIR

Abhinavagupta (c. 950–1020 CE) was one of Kashmir’s greatest philosophers, spiritual masters, literary critics and aestheticians. A towering exponent of non-dual Kashmir Shaivism, particularly the Trika and Pratyabhijñā traditions, he achieved a remarkable synthesis of metaphysics, Tantra, yoga, language and aesthetics. His philosophy conceives consciousness as the fundamental reality underlying existence, with the universe understood as an expression of the dynamic, creative power of Shiva.

His monumental Tantrāloka offers a comprehensive exposition of Shaiva Tantric philosophy and practice, while Tantrasāra presents its essential principles in a more concise form. His Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī and Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛtivimarśinī are major philosophical commentaries elucidating the doctrine of recognition, through which the individual realises their essential identity with universal consciousness. His Abhinavabhāratī, a celebrated commentary on Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, profoundly influenced Indian aesthetic theory, particularly the concept of rasa, or aesthetic experience. His Dhvanyālokalocana, a commentary on Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka, further enriched the understanding of poetic suggestion and literary expression.

Abhinavagupta’s intellectual legacy continues to attract distinguished international scholars. The British scholar Alexis Sanderson has made significant contributions to the historical and textual study of Shaivism and Tantra. Italian Indologist Raffaele Torella has advanced research into Pratyabhijñā philosophy, while Mark S. G. Dyczkowski has extensively studied Kashmir Shaivism and its doctrine of vibration. French scholar Lilian Silburn translated and interpreted Abhinavagupta’s devotional hymns, and Raniero Gnoli made seminal contributions to the international understanding of his aesthetic thought. Through the depth and breadth of his scholarship, Abhinavagupta established Kashmir as a major centre of philosophical and intellectual achievement. His reflections on consciousness, artistic experience and the unity of existence continue to resonate across cultures 


Creative Commons License

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

SAMAD MIR (1893-1959): THE CARPENTER'S ASSISTANT WHO BECAME A MYSTIC SUFI POET

                                                                               

                                                                       ( SAMAD MIR )

“Mo zchhaye rozum 

Maah e nau ke hilaal tai

Doh gom praraan 

Chhuyi na neraan malaal tai”….Samad Mir

  (O slender crescent of the new moon,

 Emerge from behind the clouds,

I have kept vigil for you since dawn, 

Why linger in displeasure still?)

 The extraordinary journey of a Kashmiri labourer who transformed the language of ordinary life into a poetry of spiritual awakening

 THE MAN WHO ARRIVED WITHOUT A CROWN

One morning in 1956, something unusual happened at Shalimar Garden in Srinagar. A poetry gathering had been organised as part of the Jashn-i-Kashmir celebrations. Poets had assembled, the audience was waiting, and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, had arrived. Yet the function did not begin. Bakshi Sahib appeared to be waiting for someone. Who could possibly keep the Prime Minister waiting at a gathering of celebrated poets?

After some time, a man arrived. He did not look like a literary celebrity. He appeared to be an ordinary Kashmiri farmer, dressed in the unassuming clothes of rural life. But the moment Bakshi Sahib saw him, he went forward to receive him and escorted him to the stage. The assembled poets rose to their feet. The Prime Minister sat beside the newcomer and began talking to him. The man was Samad Mir. Padma Shri Moti Lal Saqi, who witnessed the event and later recorded it in his monograph on the poet, recognised him immediately. Samad Mir read an old Vatchun, a form of Kashmiri mystical verse. The poem received enthusiastic applause. Remarkably, the very composition that had once been condemned as Kuffar, or unbelief, was now being celebrated before an audience that included the highest political dignitary of the state.

There was something deeply Kashmiri about this moment. A man who earned his living through manual labour had arrived at a literary gathering without the outward insignia of scholarship or social distinction. Yet his words commanded the attention of politicians, poets and listeners alike. He had not acquired his authority through a university degree, a religious office or a prestigious literary position. His authority came from somewhere else. Samad Mir had spent a lifetime listening to the silence within himself.

 THREE PLACES, ONE DESTINY

Samad Mir was born in 1894 at Sekidafar in Srinagar. His father, Khaliq Mir, belonged to Nambalhar, a village about nine kilometres from Budgam, along the Srinagar to Raithan road. Khaliq Mir was a farmer with little agricultural land. To supplement his income, he worked as an Aari-kash, sawing timber. The struggle to sustain his family eventually brought him to Srinagar, where he earned his livelihood as a labourer. His life was shaped by necessity rather than choice. He married in Srinagar, lost his first wife and subsequently married Noora of Narwara, who had some ancestral property there. Samad was born to Noora in Sekidafar. Three places thus became associated with the poet: Nambalhar, Sekidafar and Narwara. They were more than geographical points in his biography. They represented the rural world of his ancestry, the urban environment of his birth and the family connections through which his early life unfolded.

Samad's father was himself a poet. His composition Achha Posho Lo Lo became a popular song. This detail is worth remembering, for the house into which Samad was born was not entirely untouched by poetry. His father, despite the demands of earning a livelihood, possessed a creative sensibility of his own.

At the age of twenty, Samad married the daughter of Shaban Mir of Nambalhar. Meanwhile, Khaliq Mir's children began earning their own livings. Their father returned to his native village but did not settle in its centre. Instead, he built a small hut at Agar, on its outskirts. There he lived independently, cooking his own meals, praying and composing Sufiana poetry. It was a modest existence, but it contained the beginnings of a spiritual inheritance. Khaliq Mir died approximately ten years after returning to the village and was buried at Agar. Years later, his son would be buried near him. Between these two graves lay a remarkable story of poverty, poetry and spiritual aspiration.

 THE CARPENTER'S ASSISTANT WHO BECAME A MYSTIC POET

Samad Mir's early life offered little protection from economic hardship. In Srinagar, he worked as a daily-wage labourer alongside carpenters and masons. He also worked as an Aari-kash, sawing timber for a living. After his father's death, when he was about twenty-four, Samad returned to Nambalhar. He continued to supplement his agricultural income through manual work, including carpentry, masonry and timber sawing.

His hands knew the weight of tools, the resistance of wood and the fatigue of physical labour. These were not incidental experiences in his life. They placed him in intimate contact with ordinary people, their struggles and their unadorned ways of speaking. He did not belong to the world of formally educated scholars. Yet his poetry reveals an extraordinary engagement with questions that have occupied philosophers for centuries.

What is the self? What separates the individual from the universal? Is religious knowledge merely the accumulation of texts, or is it a transformation of consciousness? Can a human being overcome the ego and recognise something greater than personal identity? Samad Mir approached these questions through Kashmiri verse. His was not a philosophy confined to a study. It emerged from a life of work, contemplation and observation. He used the vocabulary of the people among whom he lived, but his thought frequently travelled beyond the boundaries of everyday experience. The contrast is striking. A man who might have been overlooked in a gathering of educated people could compose poetry dealing with Shunya, Soham, Samadhi, Maya, Sanyasa and Nishkama Karma. His intellectual world cannot be understood simply by looking at his occupation or formal education.

 THE NIGHT WHEN POETRY HAD NO WITNESS

 

“Vesiye Kaar mushkil baar gob gom

Veta-ravun  pyom

 

 Gulala paanas kaaleh rang gom.

 Veta-ravun  pyom.”….Samad Mir

 

(Oh, my friend, this burden of toil is immense,
Yet endure it, I must.
My poppy-red body has darkened to black,
Yet endure it, I must.)

Samad Mir would sometimes rise during the night and recite his poems. The words came to him, but there was initially nobody to record them. This was one of the tragedies of oral literary traditions. A poem might be born in a moment of intense inspiration, remain alive in the poet's memory and disappear if it was not preserved. Unlike a writer who could place a manuscript in a library, an oral poet depended upon human memory and the willingness of others to listen and write. Much of Samad's early poetic output was lost in this manner. Eventually, a neighbour began recording his compositions. Later, his sons took up the task of preserving their father's verses. Imagine what this means for the literary history of Kashmir. A poem could survive because someone happened to be awake, attentive and willing to write it down. Another could vanish because nobody was present to hear it. The boundary between literary immortality and complete oblivion was sometimes no more than a listening ear. Samad Mir is therefore remembered not only as a poet but also as an example of the vulnerability of oral culture.

His verses eventually found a more systematic record in Kulyat-e-Samad Mir. Moti Lal Saqi devoted considerable effort to collecting the poetry from different sources and bringing it together. Without such work, the surviving record would have been poorer. The poet's achievement and the labour of those who preserved it belong to the same story.

 SOHAM: THE BREATH THAT CONNECTS THE SELF TO THE UNIVERSE

Among the most fascinating aspects of Samad Mir's poetry is his use of Sanskrit-derived philosophical vocabulary. Words such as Soham, Shunya, Tyaga, Samadhi, Nishkama Karma, Maya, Mithya, Nirakara and Bhavsagar occur in his mystical compositions. Their presence suggests a sustained engagement with concepts associated with Vedanta and Shaiva philosophy, although the precise extent of his textual knowledge should not be assumed merely from his vocabulary.

Consider the word Soham. In Indian contemplative traditions, Soham, commonly interpreted as 'I am That', is associated with the recognition of a relationship between individual consciousness and ultimate reality. It is also connected with the natural movement of breathing in certain yogic practices. The breath itself becomes a reminder of a truth that the restless mind frequently overlooks. Samad Mir used this word repeatedly. One of his verses reads:

Paru Om Su Om Soham Su.

The words are brief, but they open a vast philosophical horizon. The spiritual journey is no longer merely a matter of external observance. It becomes an inquiry into the nature of the person who prays, breathes, suffers and seeks. The significance of this poetry lies not in the suggestion that Samad Mir simply reproduced an established philosophical doctrine. Rather, he made its vocabulary part of his own poetic world. In a society where religious identities could become boundaries, his verse moved across intellectual territories. Islamic mysticism and the language of Indian philosophical inquiry could meet within a single poetic imagination.

Such encounters were not necessarily the products of formal comparative study. They could emerge through conversation, oral teaching, personal relationships and the lived culture of Kashmir. Samad Mir's achievement was to make difficult spiritual ideas speak through the language of poetry.

One of the most remarkable philosophical terms attributed to Samad Mir is Turiya, also written Turya. In Indian philosophical thought, the term denotes the 'fourth' in relation to waking, dreaming and deep sleep. It is discussed particularly in the Mandukya Upanishad, where consciousness is examined beyond these three familiar conditions. The term is not merely another word for ordinary wakefulness. It points towards a dimension of awareness that cannot be adequately described by the usual divisions of mental experience. Samad Mir's use of this vocabulary is significant because it indicates an interest in questions of consciousness that extend beyond the everyday concerns of religious life.

His poetry also employs the expression Sahib-e-Hosh, suggesting a person endowed with awakened awareness. This recalls a central concern of Kashmir Shaivism, in which spiritual knowledge is inseparable from the recognition of consciousness itself. The parallel deserves attention, though it should not be turned into an unsupported claim that Samad Mir borrowed directly from a particular text. He lived in a Kashmir where religious thought, folklore, philosophical terminology and oral traditions could circulate through conversations that left few written records.

His poetic achievement invites us to look beyond conventional distinctions between the learned and the unlearned. A person may lack formal schooling and still possess a profound capacity for reflection. Conversely, the possession of books does not automatically bring understanding. Samad Mir's poetry returns us to this uncomfortable but necessary distinction.

 A HINDU HOUSEHOLD, A MUSLIM MYSTIC AND A POT OF TEA

Perhaps the most moving evidence of Samad Mir's character comes not from his verses but from a recollection preserved by Moti Lal Saqi. As a boy, Saqi frequently visited his maternal home in Kremshore, Budgam. There he knew a Kashmiri Pandit named Madho Ram, who was acquainted with Samad Mir. Saqi remembered seeing the poet visit Madho Ram's house repeatedly. The two men would sit together and talk for hours. Their conversations sometimes continued late into the evening. Madho Ram's wife, Tulsi Devi, affectionately known as Tulsi Ded, would serve them tea and food. Saqi remembered both Madho Ram and his wife as pious people. Even after Madho Ram's death, Samad Mir maintained his relationship with the family.

This is an important detail because it gives us something more substantial than a general statement about communal harmony. It records a particular relationship between identifiable people, remembered by someone who had witnessed it. There was no public ceremony to announce their friendship. No one needed to issue a declaration of religious tolerance. A man entered the home of another man, sat with him and talked. A woman brought tea and food. The conversation continued. The scene is ordinary, yet its implications are profound.

Saqi also recorded that Samad Mir stayed in Handwara while working as an Aari-kash. There he came into contact with elderly Pandits and stayed with some Pandit families, learning about Hindu traditions and the Shastras. These encounters offer a plausible context for the philosophical vocabulary of his poetry. They also show how knowledge can travel through the intimate spaces of daily life. The home, the workshop and the village gathering may become places of learning just as surely as a formal institution.

Samad Mir's life reminds us that intellectual curiosity does not always announce itself through credentials. Sometimes it arrives in the clothes of a labourer, sits beside an old friend and listens.

THE GODDESS TARA AND THE MANY DOORS OF MYSTICISM

Samad Mir's spiritual imagination was not confined to a single poetic mode. He composed Naats expressing devotion to the Prophet Muhammad. One well-known composition begins:

‘Kadh chon wuchh meh bala,

ya Muhammad Mustafa”.

 The intensity of his devotional feeling is also evident in the refrain:

“Had-o-lahad arsh-e-aala,

ya Muhammad Mustafa”.

 Alongside this devotion, his poetry includes a composition addressed to the goddess Tara. Tara occupies an important place in several religious traditions, including Hindu Shakta worship and Mahayana Buddhism. Her forms, attributes and theological significance vary across these traditions. Kashmir also possessed a history of goddess worship, Tantra and Shaiva-Shakta practice.  Samad Mir's poem addresses Tara through the language of longing, invocation and offering. Its imagery includes flowers and the desire for the goddess to turn her gaze towards the devotee. The surviving lines presented in the account of his work begin:

‘Praaraan praraan tarawatiye  aetiye nazar traav’

The text then evokes the worshipper's repeated waiting and the flowers brought for worship. What is striking is the presence of such a composition within the larger body of a poet also known for his Muslim devotional verse. It would be simplistic to conclude that every religious distinction disappeared in Samad Mir's mind. His Naats testify to a deeply felt devotion to the Prophet, while his Tara poem engages another sacred vocabulary. The more compelling interpretation is that his poetic imagination could enter different spiritual worlds without reducing them to caricatures. His work does not require us to erase differences between religious traditions. It asks us to recognise the possibility of intellectual and imaginative engagement across them.

THE POET WHO QUESTIONED THE AUTHORITY OF BOOKS

At a multilingual mushaira held at Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, Samad Mir appeared in the simple clothing associated with his rural life. His presence surprised some of those who had assembled. Then he recited a poem combining Urdu and Kashmiri lines. Its opening couplet was:

‘Pad pad ke gaya pather, likh likh ke gaya chor.

Jis padney se sahib miley vo padna hai aur’….Samad Mir

 

(Read and read, yet one may remain as hard as stone;

Write and write, yet one may remain a thief.

True is that learning, and that alone,

Which brings one closer to the Divine.)

 

The sense of the lines is striking: reading can turn a person into stone, while writing can become another form of confinement. The kind of learning that brings one closer to the Lord or the beloved is of a different order. The couplet is not necessarily a rejection of literacy or scholarship. Such an interpretation would be too crude. It is better understood as a challenge to the assumption that accumulated learning automatically produces wisdom.

Samad Mir knew the limitations of outward appearances. He had worked among people who measured a person's worth through occupation, income and social standing. He also knew that religious language could be used to establish authority without necessarily producing spiritual insight.

His poetry questioned the distance between knowing about truth and experiencing it. This distinction has a long history in mystical literature. A person may memorise descriptions of the ocean without ever entering the water. Another may possess no elaborate vocabulary but understand the force of the current. Samad Mir's couplet continues to resonate because it questions the vanity that can accompany intellectual achievement. The true test of knowledge, it suggests, lies in what knowledge does to the person who acquires it.

AKANANDUN: A NARRATIVE POEM

Samad Mir’s Akanandun represents a significant achievement in Kashmiri Sufi narrative poetry, distinguished by its transformation of a traditional folk tale into a vehicle for mystical and philosophical inquiry. It is important to recognise that Akanandun is not merely a short lyric or an isolated mystical composition, but a narrative poem that develops a story through poetic expression, dramatic tension and symbolic characterisation. The underlying tale belongs to Kashmiri folk tradition and has been adapted into verse by different poets, with Samad Mir’s version particularly associated with its mystical interpretation.

Centred on the figure of an only son and the anguish surrounding his fate, the poem draws upon the emotional realities of familial attachment, suffering and sacrifice to explore the spiritual predicament of the individual seeking transcendence. The relationship between Akanandun and the Jogi, or ascetic, lends itself to interpretation within the Sufi framework of the spiritual master and the disciple. The narrative may consequently be examined in relation to fanā, the dissolution of the individual ego in the pursuit of spiritual realisation, and the rigorous discipline associated with inward transformation. Its literary achievement, however, lies not merely in the communication of a mystical doctrine. Samad Mir employs the familiar idiom of Kashmiri oral culture to render abstract spiritual concerns accessible through dramatic action and emotional intensity. The suffering of the family gives the narrative its human gravity, while its mystical dimension invites reflection on the tension between worldly attachment and spiritual aspiration. Akanandun ultimately exemplifies the capacity of Kashmiri Sufi poetry to unite folk narrative, vernacular expression and spiritual speculation in a literary form whose enduring force derives from the interplay between human experience and the quest for ultimate truth.

 THE SIMPLE LIFE OF A FAQUIR

“Yaavana lolla haeth lolli 

Beyi akki latti royyi haav

Dohhai vuchha-hai thali thali

Kyoho kalli karu thahraav”….Samad Mir


(O Youth of mine, come back once more,

I shall cradle you in my lap,

Return just once along this path,

I shall gaze upon you every moment,

And speak no more of the waiting.)

Moti Lal Saqi's account describes Samad Mir as a man of simple habits. He preferred vegetarian food, particularly bitter gourd and green vegetables. He ate little and drank salt tea with maize Sattu. He generally avoided feasts and social functions. He also made blankets from sheep's wool and sold them to earn money. In other seasons, he participated in farming activities. This was no romantic life removed from material necessity. The poet still had to work, eat and provide for his family. He had two sons, Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Mohammad, and two daughters, Azi and Rehti. One of his sons died young.

Samad Mir's spiritual life therefore unfolded within the ordinary demands of family responsibility and livelihood. He had three Murshids, or spiritual guides, identified in the biographical account as Khwaja Habib Najar of Agar, Khaliq Najar of Batmaloo and Ramzan Dar of Anchidoora, Anantnag. He also worked alongside his Murshid Khaliq Najar during the construction of Hari Niwas, Maharaja’s palace on Gupkar Road in Srinagar.

The image is unforgettable: a mystic poet working as a labourer on a royal building, earning his livelihood through the same physical exertion as countless other workers. The palace belonged to the world of authority and wealth. Samad Mir's spiritual authority came from an altogether different source.

His life suggests that renunciation need not mean the complete abandonment of work. One may continue to earn one's bread while attempting to discipline desire, vanity and the restless demands of the ego.

‘Taajdaaraan de na ameeraan de

Deeve jalde sadha faqeeraan de ‘

 The lamps of spiritual insight, as the Punjabi lines associated with this account suggest, do not burn merely for those who possess crowns or riches. They burn for those who have learnt to loosen their attachment to them.

THE LAST JOURNEY TO AGAR

"Ha vaawa ikh na dim hai graava havaal tai,
Dariyaav chhane chamahai aabe zulaal tai" ….. Samad Mir

(O wind, would you come my way one day,
Unhurried and free,
And lend an ear to my laments,
My pleas,
My silent agony?
From your flowing stream,
Where crystal-clear waters gleam,
Let me, too, drink deep of that water
So pure and serene.)

Samad Mir died on 9 January 1959 at his home in Nambalhar. He was buried near his father's grave at Agar. There is a quiet symmetry in this ending. His father had withdrawn to a small hut on the outskirts of the village, where he prayed and composed poetry. His son returned to the same village after years of labour and contemplation. In death, father and son came to rest beside one another.

Samad Mir is believed to have composed around two hundred poems, many in the vatchun form. Among the compositions remembered in accounts of his work are: veta-raavun pyom, tan naar daz aarwali, agar chashman bani gosh, ha vaada saryo, ath van maaney kyah, insaaf kar insaaf kar, ha Kan dooro, vanna kas rovum doh tai raat, mo zchhaye rozum maahe nau ke hilaal tai, tagiye godda kaas paanas tchhai, jaayi jaayi yaaras vonn me ditchyom, agar bozakh yi chhai kath,paayi hyot aashaqav kaaba butkhaanas, aey peeri munn aey peeri munn, ya zinda thaavi ya maari, vaar chum na vana-nas and paru om su om soham su.

The preservation of his compositions required the efforts of family members, neighbours, poets and scholars. Moti Lal Saqi's work in collecting and publishing the poetry helped bring Samad Mir's achievement to a wider readership.

Poet Prem Nath Shad also remembered him with affection. Shad recalled visiting Samad Mir in 1947 as a school friend of his son Ghulam Rasool. He showed the older poet some verses he had written as a young man. Samad Mir encouraged him to continue both his studies and his poetry. It is a small incident, but it reveals another dimension of the man. The mystic who questioned the limitations of book learning did not discourage a young person from studying. He encouraged the young poet to pursue both education and creative work. That distinction matters. Samad Mir was not asking people to remain ignorant. He was asking them to seek something deeper than the mere possession of information.

WHAT REMAINS WHEN THE VOICE FALLS SILENT?

Samad Mir's significance lies in more than the number of poems he composed or the unusual philosophical terms he employed. It lies in the meeting of several worlds within one human life. He was a rural Kashmiri, a labourer, a farmer, a family man, a disciple of spiritual guides and a poet whose work embraced Islamic devotion alongside ideas associated with Indian philosophical traditions.

His friendship with Madho Ram, preserved in Moti Lal Saqi's recollection, gives a human face to the wider cultural exchanges visible in his poetry. His composition on Tara, his Naats and his verses on Soham and Turiya reveal a poetic imagination willing to explore different dimensions of spiritual experience.

He lived in a world where knowledge could pass from one person to another through conversation, hospitality, shared work and the listening ear. He demonstrated that the absence of formal education need not mean the absence of intellectual depth. He showed that a person could remain rooted in a particular devotional tradition while engaging ideas expressed in another. Above all, he reminds us that spiritual insight cannot be measured by the clothes a person wears, the occupation he follows or the social rank he occupies.

In 1956, when Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad waited at Shalimar Garden for a man dressed like a farmer, he was waiting for a poet whose reputation had travelled far beyond his village. Samad Mir had arrived without a crown, without a scholar's robe and without the outward trappings of authority. Yet his words had already entered the memory of Kashmir.

Samad Mir did not leave us a philosophical system in the conventional sense. He left us poems, remembered conversations, and the example of a life lived with simplicity. In Kashmir's literary landscape, where celebrated names often stand in the foreground, Samad Mir represents another kind of greatness: the greatness of a man whose outward life appeared ordinary while his inward world remained immense. His poetry asks us to look again at the people we overlook. For the voice of wisdom does not always emerge from a university, a palace or a pulpit. Sometimes it rises in the middle of the night from a modest home, passes through the memory of a neighbour and survives because a son, a friend or a scholar takes the trouble to preserve it.


(Avtar Mota)


Creative Commons License